Skip to main content

About your Search

20120501
20120531
STATION
CSPAN3 801
LANGUAGE
English 801
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 801 (some duplicates have been removed)
in relations between russia and the united states there, have been many successes, including the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, cooperation on afghanistan, iran, and north korea. civilian nuclear power, and other areas. but there have been notable differences over syria, missile defense, human rights, enforcement of intellectual property rights and con dufkt elections last month. both president put spin and president obama have called for a deepening of economic cooperation between the two countries. the russian state duma its expected to ratify russia's succession to the wto in june or july. we expect 30 days after that, roughly, that russia will become a member of the world trade organization. for the united states, to take advantage of the new market openings in the russian market, congress must pass legislation to grant russia permanent normal trade relations treatment. the panel today will focus on prospects for improving relations with russia, and how the wto process has prompted russia to take measures to open its economy, to more international trade and investment. we had timed this pa
in the united states senate. he can start by putting americans to work by aproviding the keystone pipeline. he could do something about sky high gas prices by increasing american energy production and he could empower small businesses by cutting red tape and reempleg the regulatory process. he could deal with our crippling debt by encouraging democrats to pass a duj et. look, we want to work with the president, but it's about time that he gets serious, focused on jobs, focused on our economy and enough with the gimmicks. >>. [ inaudible ] >> doing a very good job. i do believe when it comes to fast and furious, we've got to get to the bottom of what happened and who's responsible. and the committee is doing that and i'm supporting their efforts. >> does that mean you are sea supporting -- he is in the process of right now writing a resolution you're supporting a resolution. >> i'm supporting in their efforts to hold those people in the department of justice accountable for what happened. the committee has work to do. they know what they have to do. they're pursuing a lot of unanswered question
that birth rights dramatically changed from the better and the provision is unique to the united states. this is a half hour. thanks to both of you for joining us. you will be talking about at this conference about birth right citizenship. set the stage for us in what is birth right citizenship. >> in a nut shell, this is the principal that any person born in the united states regardless of the status of their parents and theiran set offers and race and gender and religion and any other category is a citizen of the united states by virtue of being born here. you can become a citizen if you are an immigrant. the important point is this was not a principal that goes to the constitution. in the civil rights act of 1866. the first clause of the 14th amendment said any person born in the united states with or two minor exceptions were thought to be citizens of their own sovereignties, but any person born in the united states is a citizen. this was not necessarily the case of the civil war, the most dramatic example was dread scott in which the supreme court stated that no black person could
. and the cold war is not done yet. it's not just the fall of china. it's not just the united states cozying up to japan. but it's going to explode the cold war is going to heat up if you will, in korea. now, remember the last lecture, world war ii? we talked about korea being occupied by japan. once the war is over, the united states and the soviet union decide to divide korea with the united states being in control of the southern part of korea, the soviet union is going to be administering the northern part of korea. eventually, both u.s. and ussr agree that we will withdraw and allow the koreans to have some degree of self-determination. we're going to pull out, soviet union's going to pull out. the koreans will be able to determine their future and their fate. and we both did. the difference is, when we pulled out, we basically took everything with us. when the soviet union pulled out, they left behind a stockpile of weapons. the most modern military technology that they had at the time, and that's the temptation that was going to be used the following summer, 1950, north korea with the us
two times the united states has hosted nato summits were in 1978 and 1999 which, of course, was the 50th anniversary during president clinton's term. as i've said, 61 countries as well as the eu, the united nations and the world bank will be in attendance. they'll be a different grouping, if you will, of countries during the course of the day. as i said, the president will fly to chicago on saturday evening. the first meeting that he'll have on sunday will be with president karzai of afghanistan. obviously, an important meeting because a central focus of the summit will be on afghanistan and afghanistan's future. so the first meeting of the day appropriately is going to be with president karzai of afghanistan. the president will then move into various, a series of nato immediatings. initial meeting with just the nato allies at 28. that evening, on sunday evening, the nato allies will meet at soldier field for a working dinner and that will be leaders plus one adviser. on monday morning, the summit will continue at mccormick place with discussions on afghanistan and this will be a broad
the united states senate, or congress. but the fact is they're not a permanent member of the council. >> uh-huh. >> we are. and as a permanent member of council, in fact, i think we're the only permanent member. and so we stand in a very special status that we are not currently able to exercise, and i think with respect to the senator's fears, and other fears, what you're trying to protect is something that would go against the interests of our country. that's what we need to be able to protect. if sudan votes to do something or blocks us from doing something that we're interested in doing, then there are plenty of other avenues of recourse for that, too. >> uh-huh. >> but if you're dealing with the oceans and dealing with this question of royalties and other things, the fact that we would preserve the right to protect our interests, i think what the senator and others have raised as an issue is, they don't want money going to dictators. they don't want money going to bad actor countries. we can block that. we can block that until the cows come home. and so i think we can be protected. so,
to testify on the nato summit which the united states is proud to be hosting in chicago on may 20th and may 21st. with your permission, senator, i would like to submit my full statement and summarize my comments here. >> we appreciate and without objection the full statement will be in the record. >> i appreciate the support and the sustained recognition of the significance of this alliance, transatlantic security. this chicago summit will be the first on american soil in 13 years and the first ever outside of washington. in adang to the community to showcase our nation's great cities a symbol of nato to the united states. it is also an opportunity to underscore to the american people the continued value of this alliance and security challenges we face today. nearly 18 months ago the allies unveiled a new strategic concept for focus in the 21st century. building on the decisions taking in lisbon, the allies have three objectives. was a capabilities and partnerships and if i might, i'd like to say a few words about these. on afghanistan the isaf coalition has prevented that country from serv
's not just the united states cozying up to japan. it's going to explode the cold war and it will heat up in korea. now remember the last lecture of world war ii. we talked about korea being occupied by japan. once the war is over, the united states and the soviet union decide to divide korea with the united states being in control of the southern part of korea and the sev yet union is going to be administering the northern part of korea. eventually both u.s. and uss r agree we will withdraw and allow them to have a degree of self determination. we are going pull out and the soviet union will and the koreans will be able to determine their future and fate. we both did. the difference is when we pulled out, we took everything with us. when the soviet union pulled out, they left a stockpile of weapons. the most mot earn technology they had at the time. that's a temptation that was going to be used. the following summer with the use of soviet military armaments, they will innovate and try to take possession of the country. this is what they had warned us about. they are going to expand into
spies in the united states. they passed information along that we were working on it and close to it. he knew we were very close to having a successful nuclear weapon. well, what truman is going to do then is to give the japanese an opportunity to surrender when they don't. we talked about this and dropped two. first on hiroshima august sixth when there was no surrender. we dropped the second on august 9th and eventual low the japanese surrendered. i mentioned to you, the primary reason why truman dropped it was to save american lives. the estimates of americans, what was the casualty if we were going to invade as high as a million american casualties. exactly. that was the primary reason. today i will give you a secondary reason. it's possible that he decided to drop the bomb not just to save lives, but to signal a shift and to send stalin a completely different message about the role of the u.s. and the relationship with the soviet union. we are going drop the bomb to send you a signal that there is a new sheriff in town. roosevelt is dead and cooperation is dead. harry truman will hav
was going to be the great seal of the united states. and a certain group of american leaders thought that it should be the bald eagle but another group said no, the image of the united states, the seal should show moses leading the children of israel out of bondage and into the promised land. there was this heated debate. america came this close to having moses as its national symbol. you got the folically challenged bird instead. but the authors of the moses seal were none other than thomas jefferson and benjamin franklin. so they had internalized the biblical narrative. now, for many of this generation of founding mothers and founding fathers, the fact that they were the new israel meant that they had a kinship relationship with the old israel, the jewish people. it meant since they were -- they had inherited a new promised land. they had a connection with the old promised land. and they concluded that to be good christians, to be good americans, it was their divinely ordained duty to help the old israel go back and restore their ancient kingdom to help god fulfill his promises to
was in germany on official business. and shortly after general wheeler returned to the united states he suffered a heart attack, and was in walter reed. the only two chiefs who were asked about this dismissed it, one in very crude terms, and wheeler later told the president that there had never been such a meeting. so that is about as far as i can go with that controversial story. as secretary brown alluded to, we associate this period with mcnamara, and with vietnam. but mcnamara's involvement in a whole series of other crises, both foreign and domestic, is simply remarkable. we've heard about the dominican republic, the nato crisis, the middle east war, czechoslovakian invasion, demonstrations in the streets of the united states. any one of these crises could have defined a presidency. for example, if we look at president jimmy carter's administration, it involved notable successes, but it's best remembered for the iranian hostage issue. when the iranians took over the american embassy in tehran, and then held hostage americans for more than a year. think about mcnamara. in january 1968, the n
and that the provision is unique to the united states. this is half an hour. >>> american history tv is in milwaukee at the organization of american historians annual meeting and we're joined by professor eric foner from columbia university and linda kerber with the university of iowa. thanks to both of you for joining us. you'll be talking about at this conference about birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment. why don't you set the stage for us, mr. foner, and what is birthright citizenship? >> well, in a nutshell, this is the principle that any person born in the united states, regardless of the status of their parents, their ancestors, regardless of their race, gender, religion, any other category, is a citizen of the united states just by the virtue of being boerch here. of course you can also become a citizen by naturalization if you're an immigrant. but the important point is this was not a principle that goes all the way back to the institution constitution. it was really implemented or institutionalized in the aftermath of the civil war and the 14th amendment which wrote it into the co
a change. missouri's own harry truman now becomes president of the united states. very interesting circumstances, obviously. we are just about to wrap up the war in europe. we are i land hopping our way into japan. i mean, it looks promising and yet, there are all kinds of pot holes along the way. we still have to finish the defeat of germany. we still have to finish off japan. how we do that, when we do that, and what are the consequences of what we're doing, that's the rest of the story. truman is going to meet with stalin and churchill in potsdam, germany, after hitler is defeated. i mean, it's a new big three now with harry truman being the president now instead of roosevelt. truman's attitude is going to be very different from that of roosevelt. and some indication of that change of u.s. policy comes right away. remember i mentioned to you that even vice president harry truman had not been kept informed of the manhattan project. one of them is, there's a few things you need to know. we've been working on a bomb. it's the biggest, baddest bomb around. here in potsdam, truman ge
of evaluative and educational process that does justice to this committee and justice to the united states senate ratification process, i announce today that i do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the november elections. we will have extensive hearings. we will do our due diligence. we'll prepare for a vote, but unless somehow the dynamic were to shift or change, we will wait until the passions of the election have subsided before we vote. my hope and expectation is that everyone will exhaust all avenues of inquiry and carefully consider the arguments on both sides. the contentious political season will now give us a chance to do what this committee has historically done best, which is not to politicize but to spend serious thoughtful time deliberating and debating all of the questions of substance. i'm pleased to see that the internet is already beginning to buzz with some discussion of this. but i will say up front there's a lot of misinformation and there's a certain amount of mythology, so i look forward to the process of clearing up the misinformation and the m
will be flying to berlin. and a few days later, he will become to the united states to attend the g-8 summit hosted by president barack obama at camp david. and that will also be very important international test that president hollande will be facing very soon in his presidency. >> we're talking about europe's challenge to austerity. independents 202-628-0205. if you're calling from outside the united states today, we hope that you will, 202-628-0184. as always, we'll be taking your tweets, looking at your e-mails and the conversation continues on facebook. our first call comes from spokane, washington. mary on our line for republicans. you're on "the washington journal." go ahead. >> ye >>. >> caller: yeah, here in the united states, we have the same issues you're having over there, but your countries always seem more on the ball to listen to the people. and i was wondering why -- i always suggested how come you guys go to the people and ask their opinion or like i suggested here in the state, there's a lot of people in the united states that are intelligent. they just can't physically wor
in the time i have been here. the french socialists are not strangers for the united states. they shouldn't be strangers. it has been true that it has been 17 years since the socialists were in power at the presidency. of course, they ran the government about a decade ago when spauo was in power. we have always had a very good relationship with any government that is there in france. i am confident we will have a good relationship with this government in france. we do have to see how this government is going to deal with the issues of the day. it's one thing to be campaigning. it is always something different to be governing. it is not me. it is not my job to predict how this will evolve. i will note that francoi francois hollande campaigned to keep france in the military structure. that was a remarkable statement after nicolas sarkozy to come back into the structure. i think france learned in the libya operation that being integrated in the command structure gives you a voice and say over what happens in the internal affairs of the military operation. that's important. you learn there ar
was that russia will also seek a predictable relationship with the united states. will adhere to the treaty on nuclear arms. and push for guarantees that the u.s. missile shield in europe will not be directed against russia. its that something that -- that he wants in writing or is that a trust but verify type of thing. or -- how, what does that mean? that statement? >> well we, have had a discussion with russia since -- since lisbon. where the nato allies agreed -- to, for the first time to deploy a -- a nato territorial missile defense system that would provide protection for nato european territories, populations and forces against a growing ballistic missile threat from outside of europe. that decision was not directed at russia. nor were the systems that were going to be deployed, capable of undermining strategic stability with russia or indeed undermine the nuclear deterrent of russia. we have been saying this for three years. we, we are, more than happy to put it in writing because we have already done so. would be happy to do it in the future. the second thing we did in lisbon was t
to place it in a larger perspective, and that is by non-indians who want equality in the united states, wrapping themselves in the flag, and native peoples were here first, and survival, the fact that they have survived as separate cultures uniquely on the planet as american indians is, to me, the most noteworthy. they have not melded into the mainstream. by and large, tribes are still operating. some are in better shape than others, some are larger, some are smaller. some have suffered more, some have suffered slightly less, but they are still here, and if i wanted to change one thing, i would like the mainstream of america to realize that american indians, as tribes and tribal people, are still here, still a vibrant part of the economy, a part of the culture, a part of the arts, literature, music, this is, after all, oklahoma is, after all, an american indian state at its start, and american indians have not disappeared or vanished into the mainstream with dinosaurs, as some people are prone to ask me sometimes. >>> find out where skrchlt span's local content vehicles are going next
's also something going on in the united states but in the united states that process takes on a much different context, and the main reason for that is that in the u.s. you have universal white male suffrage by 1820 unlike in europe where it is france and the 1870s and other countries later on, in the u.s. you have basically full mass democracy very early on and you have it before most immigrants he show up, so when the immigrants begin to be integrated into american society and particularly when they begin to be integrated into american politics, they're being integrated into a much different world than are those immigrants that we talked about in europe. so what i want to do today is talk about how the united states begins to develop a plurist philosophy, a pleuralist vision and i want to trace the roots back to the way politics worked in 19th century america. i have here just to give you a sense of the kind of politics we're talking about, an image from harper's weekly in 1858, around election time or just after election time, in 1858 and shows a saloon and a polling place. they d
. missouri's own harry truman now becomes president of the united states. very interesting circumstances. obviously. we are just about to wrap up the war in europe. we are island hopping our way to japan. i mean, it looks promising and yet there are all kinds of potholes along the way. we still have to finish the defeat of germany. we still have to finish off japan. how we do that, when we do that, and then what are the consequences of what we're doing, that's the rest of this story. true man truman is going to mee with stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeatedh stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.truman stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.ruman i stalin and churchill in germany after hitler's defeated.pgermany after hitler's defeated.pogerma defeated.tsgermany after hitler defeated.dgermany after hitler' defeated.agermany after hitler' defeated.mgermany after hitler' defeated.potsdam germany after hitler's def
, and comprehensive discussion about whether the united states of america should join the law of the sea convention. i want to underscore the word comprehensive. i've heard from countless military and business leaders for some period of time who believe it is urgent that we ratify this treaty. and i've also spoken with senators and some groups who oppose the treaty. i intend to make certain that the committee does its job properly and thoroughly. we will hear from all sides and we will ask all the questions as we begin the process of educational hearings on this issue. the first since 2007. the senate has seen a fair number of new members elected since then from both sides of the aisle. and our committee also has new members. so i think a thorough examination of the treaty is especially timely and relevant. some of us have had the opportunity in the past to the evaluate this treaty and even to vote on it in this committee. i am personally deeply supportive of it, and i believe it is now more urgent than ever that we ratify it because to remain outside of it is fundamentally directly counter to the bes
. historically each time that the united states has entered into almost any kind of treaty we have been very acidious in doing everything we could to follow that treaty. we have not always been afforded the reciprocal courtesy. i suggest that a new start is a good example of what happens when we don't negotiate in a way that is only in the best interest of the united states. we in the first phase of new start reduced our strategic war head counts significantly without really impacting the russians a great deal when the tactical war heads were left completely out of the equation and part of that promise was that we would modernize our nuclear weapons capability. and it just seems like over time things degrade. and to give a president as flexible as this one the ability to enter into treaties without congressional approval on something as critical as our space assets and our space access is, i think, a foolish ernd on our part and i hope we suggest that. >> gentleman from california, five minutes. >> some time ago mr. andrews suggested that we try to avoid presidential politics as we continue
connolly looks at pluralism in the united states. this 1:15 class took place at ball state university in indiana. >>> on tuesday in class, we looked at the social question in europe. and one of the things we talk about was the ways in which european governments attempted to appease the working classes, alleviate their concerns, reduce social tension. one of the tools they used was mass politics, as we talked about. that's also something that's going on in the united states. but in the united states, that process takes on a much different context. the main reason for that is that in the u.s., you have universal white male suffrage by 1820. unlike in europe where it is france and the 1870s and other countries later on, in the u.s. you have basically full mass democracy very early on and you have it before most immigrants show up, so when the immigrants begin to be integrated into american society and particularly when they begin to be integrated into american politics, they're being integrated into a much different world than are those immigrants that we talked about in europe. so what
anything provocative. even if it the united states doesn't could that, i worry the europeans would do that and more so the chinese, the russians and others. so we cannot allow that to happen. if iran is going to continue enriching during this process, we have to continue ratcheting up the sanctions. otherwise we're in a losing scenario here. >> nick? >> warren, i think the problem in both democratic and republican administrations in the past is that we haven't believed in diplomacy enough to give it a real try. every administration from jimmy carter to reagan on through to barack obama has had one or two disyou will tree meetings with the iranians in some conference room in vienna or geneva and that's it. so here's the problem for us. we're in an overheated political environment, we're in an election year. and some people will want to set up a construct that if the president doesn't succeed within a month or two, he'll have failed. and that's not in our interest. we've got to have more patience, and a longer-term strategic view. so i would say, commit ourselves to a serious bout of di
disposal but will continue to ensure that its military a trained and will be working with the united states in that particular area. many other examples of this exist and i think the hope is that as we identify this brigade in the united states that will be rotating battalions to europe. possibly twice annually, although we're still working on the frequency of that, that will also be a way to enhance training in the alliance answer a new u.s. contribution to the nato response force and, again, we can get into those details in the q&a. i fear i've spoken too long already. i'm going to leave it at that and turn it over to the next person on the panel. thank you. >> julianne, thank you very much for rapidly going through what is a packed agenda, when you, start to look at these issues and it's very difficult in the time you have. you were very generous i think as well to describe britain's future defense struggles as a bell curve and i think within the u.k. they've been described as kind of black hole around $35 billion worth of defense expenditures which have been pushed into the future, beca
trade of the united states. and less than 2 point something of russian foreign trade. which suggests in turn that neither united states nor russia are to each other an important economic partner. just for example with our neighbor in ukraine our trade is 20% higher. with eu it is -- it is almost ten times hyper. -- ten times higher. so what it means, it means we are missing a good economic underpinning for political relations. and that leaves them still vulnerable to the politics of the day, to the crisises of the day, and, and unnecessarily so. we certainly have a lot of things that we have in common in terms of challenges that we face. and i, once drew a list of things that unite us. it appears much longer. we don't see eye to eye. and i would submit important for russia and hopefully for the united states. we have progress aid lot through the last three years. reset has brought a lot of new things, a lot of new way of doing things. the commission that was established by the two presidents seems to be producing new ideas, new avenues for, for cooperation, both between the
for arizona, but it does not work for the united states. observations that the population of arizona has simply gone to other states is accurate. so what arizona has tried to do while an effort at the state level to address the impact of illegal immigration is not a sound policy in the framework of what we need to do as a nation. those hyperbolic claims of racism reflects a racist construct of how our community works together and it's just as destructive as those who are motivated to demand a purge of all non-native born from the basis of a racist ideology and i for swain, enough. we need a sane approach. secure sovereign borders, account for those without lawful authority. engage in necessary bureaucratic reform and engage all levels of government for ongoing, internal enforcement and let me elab eate a little on that because i think that's what todd wanted to hear from me. secure our sovereign borders. our border must be operationally secure for several important reasons. number one, there isnis an inte security component. five years, peopleitarianed at the border from every country on
rate of undocumented population growth in the united states. simple equation in demography. net migration equals in migration minus out migration. you don't affect in migration, you dramatically reduce out migration, net migration increases. that's the sort of the rapid growth of undocumented migration into the united states. by militarizing the border with our closest trading partner, closest neighbor, with canada in the hemisphere, we didn't solve the problem of illegal migration. we made it worse. we transformed what had been a circular flow of male workers going to three states and turned it into a settled population of families living in 50 states, and double the net rate of undocumented population growth in the process. so now we have 11 million people living in this country out of status. and these people are a great loss, represent a great loss of human capital to the nation, because there is nowhere for them to go. they cannot use their skills to their utmost productivity. they cannot use their education. they are confined to a black market, informal sector in the unite
of the council, this body on which the united states has a seat and has what you described as veto power, is a recommending body and it appears also to me as i look back at 160, section 160, subsection 2g that it is up to the assembly and not to the council to decide upon the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits from activities in the area. so, secretary clinton, i was wondering if you could help me understand is my reading correct or am i missing something? >> senator, the assembly cannot take up an issue unless recommended by the council. any decision that would impose any obligations on the united states or otherwise deal with substance must go through the council. the secretariat has no decision making authority. the practical consequence of this is that the united states would have the right to reject or veto any decision that would result in a substantive obligation on the united states or that would have financial and budgetary implications, and that is due to the fact that the u.s. is unique in having a permanent seat on the sea bed authority council which i
in this field. september 11th hijackers used united states and foreign financial institutions to hold, move, and retrieve their money. they deposited money into united states accounts via wire transfers and depp sits of traveler's checks and cash that was brought from overseas. they kept funds in foreign accounts which they accessed through atmst and credit card transactions in the home land. according to the september 11th commission, the plot cost al qaeda somewhere in the range of $400,000 to $500,000, of which approximately $300,000 passed through the hijackers' bank casualties here in the united states. after the attacks, the united states publicly declared that the fight against al qaeda financing was as critical as the fight against al qaeda itself. the charge of the united states intelligence and law enforcement communities was clear -- if we choke off the terrorists' money, we limit their ability to conduct mass casualty attacks. within months of the attacks, the department of defense, the fbi, the cia, and perhaps most importantly the department of treasury launched a swift and un
in russia. whether united states gives us pn it tr or not, it is not something that we want to continue for several republics. first, we want americans to be our good partners. secondly, politically, it is one of the vestiges of the cold war mentality still with us and spoils political environment for the reasons which one cannot even explain today because the reasons why jackson/vanek appeared in the first place, how it was wrong even at that time, are no longer. so what is left as a vestige of the cold war still with us and reflections of a wider problem in our relations, and the cold war mentality that sometimes still persists as one of my american colleagues said to me we have victims of the post cold war hangover, which is right. very frequently we judge each other through this that had been developed and not through the commonality of purpose that we have today. it is extremely important. we want to work with the americans. we want to do business with the americans. we want you to be present in the russian market. we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies like o
century a pluralist philosophy and explanation of what the united states was like. now, basically just there is a lot of different ways to define and understand pluralism and so just for our purposes of fairly straight forward and basic definition of it is a vision of in this case the united states as a country with many different cultures, many different ethnic groups and there isn't one single american identity that everyone has to subscribe to in every way. another way to think about it is the way in which immigrants could identify themselves. they could identify themselves in hyphenated terms as irish american, polish american and italian american and what i want to do today is get at the roots of that identity, the roots of the development of that conception of what the united states is. we're to do it by going through three different sections, three different sets of developments. the first is going to be the world of party politics like the image we just looked at from the period from about 1840 to the end of the 19th century. it is a period when there is very stiff competition
delineated the outer edge of the continental shelf of the united states. other countries can prohibit the united states from coming in to an ecs. we can't, because we're not party to the treaty. the only way to protect that outside of this is to have -- t accede to the treaty. and finally, no company is going to put millions of dollars into the effort to go out and do the mining or do the drilling if they don't have the legal certainty protection of the treaty. so, there are further reasons in answer to mr. fuller. we'll have mr. fuller in here and others who oppose it have a chance to explore this. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for beginning this series of hearings, which i think is incredibly important. couple of years ago, i chaired the beginning of one of these on your behalf. i think it is even more important today than it was then. i appreciate all of our distinguished witnesses and their service to our country. general dempsey, when you took an oath as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and when you took an oath to the service that you original
interest in the united states and he said his message in washington was the united states is one budget deal away from being restored on the world stage. and i think -- and he was also saying that some countries in east asia were saying, look, don't spend your time with the united states. we're going to be the next power you know, so pay attention to us. and it's a challenge for the united states on how to deal with that. so frankly, you know, my feeling is that whether it's a question of the united states' ability to be a strong economy, to be innovative, to support foreign affairs budget, whether it's security issues, it has to start at home and i think that's a key issue of trying to restore the fundamentals of u.s. growth which include dealing with the spending and debt and deficit policies. not relying solely on monetary policy as we've largely been doing because if you rely on monetary policy for a long time, you plant the seeds of other problems. i don't only mean the fiscal issues. it's also what i find interesting now and what i experience with the world bank is that because i
and the missouri both had several hundred years of contact with french traders by the time the united states came along. so there were people in the tribe that could read french extremely fluently. speak it, read it, whatever. so the letters that he sent out, he sent them in that language because it was pretty much a universal language at the time. the otos and the missouris were kind of a small tribe in that they had a lot of he enemies and so they were always looking for allies and resources. so when they came along, lewis and clark saw this as them notifying that the united states now owns this territory and you're under our control or whatever. the otos saw that as a very important and potentially powerful ally against their enemies. so this was important to them. and that's probably why they kept it. lewis and clark, they met with several oto leaders at that time. one was big ax and one was big horse. now, this is the certificate of friendship that was given to big ax. and you can see his name right here. >> what does this say? >> it basically just says that the man named big ax is a friend
might appear to suggest trading large areas of europe for war with the united states may be hard going. at the ambassadorial group in washington, secretary general sticker confirmed this was not a needle-steering group and the council had not given it any power. a number of nations expressed strong dissatisfaction about the lack of information they were receiving about berlin planning, about the ambassadorial group giving instructions and about the way that the allied powers were presenting papers to nato committees on a take it or leave it basis. the canadian ambassador said if the allies are to be committed in war, they should be informed in peace. the belgian ambassador added, since they're all in danger of war, they should all take part in the planning. the four powers responded quickly to this strong sense of dissatisfaction in the nato council. on september 27th, they provided a full report on live oak plans and secretary general also presented the ambassadors with these new suggested instructions to nato military authorities, which he helped to draft. the instructions stated, if
in the history of trade and taxation in the united states and is the author of several scholarly works, 19th and 20th tariff policy. long a civil war buff, his attention turned to the presidency of abraham lincoln after a fortuitous discovery at library of congress. the find marked the beginning of a four year hunt for documents culminating in his book, co-authored with sebastian page, lincoln and the movement for black resettlement. in addition to writing, dr. magnus is an academic programs director at the institute for humane studies at george mason university, also taught in public administration at american university, and international tragtional trade . also in his biography, something i find fascinating. he is an avid scuba diver. and plays underwater hockey. for the washington, d.c., and i love this name -- beltway bottom feeders. there is probably no end of applicants for that team. after dr. magnus makes his presentation, rodney ross will come to read a poem of -- of john willis menard that is very appropriate. actually there are copies, print copies of it on the table outside. rod
billion that would be royalties that would be paid to the isa as "pos opposed to the united states and of course go to the organization in kingston, jamaica for redistribution to the developing world. and this is the first time in history that an international organization, the u.n. in this case, would possess taxing authority over this country. now, i've heard the veto argument. discussed by one of the other members here. i think the secretary ritsch. it's really not too important to discuss that, because there are two entities that would make that determination. you have the council, the 36th-member council, the assembly, to make these decisions, but the point is, under article 160, it's going to cost us. well, let's see. yeah. under article 82, payments and contributions shall be made annually rp to all production at a site after this period's time. what we're saying, it's going to be paid regardless of where you think it should go or where you think it is going to go. the second thing i want to kov herb is the environmental and, we in this, for the ten years now have rejected i
the united states, have observed for centuries. given that we haven't, to date, had any major disruptions at sea, can you respond to that and talk about why it's -- why the sense now is that it's imperative to ratify the treaty? >> i can. the customary international law evolves and i can give you an example of something on the land domain in a moment. but it evolves. and it is subject to individual interpretations. so, threading this back to my earlier answer. the rise of new nations competing for resources, brazil, russia, india, china, the list goes on and on. their rise puts us in a position where unless we have this convention with which to form a basis to have the conversation about resources of the sort you're talking about, does cause us to be increasingly at risk to instability. and that's my job, instability. the secretary can speak eloquently about the economic h i issues, but i'm speaking to the security issues. so that is what has changed. and i'll give you the example of the land domain that i mentioned. we are party to the geneva convention. there were plenty of customary i
important basic research projects in american history underway in the united states. tim was the founding director of that project. after his service on that project and continuing to publish other acclaimed books, he now actually holds his job as the collector of the richard nixon library out in california. as the director of the nixon library, tim has not only been organizing world history projects of his own, he's actually set precedents in almost setting the model of how to run a presidential library under the most difficult possible circumstances. it's a tribute to his abilities. then to tim's right, your left is bob strong. i know bob strong principally through his scholarship. bob works in that strange netherworld where you study american politics by understanding its political history. some days he looks like a political historian and could be an exemplar of both. i think he's probably the single most prominent and important historian of the carter presidency to publish so far. his work on carter's foreign policy is today the standard work that any scholar looking at that must rea
-2012 there will be no war, no deal. this is a to 13 problem. and ultimately it will be a problem with the united states fundamentally is going to have to wrestle with. syria, the situation there will continue until two things occur. number one, the russians can be dissuaded from their policy of backing -- and there would be some fundamental change on the ground. right now you don't even have a hurting stalemate. you have a situation where the regime still controls the issuance of state power. the opposition will not break but neither can it cause the regime to break. now what to do about this. this of course is the great co-none drum. what do we do? here again i am a believer. in the united states determines that it is in its vital national interest to remove this regime, then it should act comprehensively and decisively in an effort to do it. if it does not believe it it is in the vital national interest to resume it and in my judgment it is not a vital national interest, we should stay out and certainly not adopt the kind of half-baked ill advised, half measures that will get us into a military commi
in the united states peaked. between 2008 and 2009 it actually fell from 12 million to 11 million people. since 2009, it's held steady at 11 -- probably trending downward. on a net basis, illegal mig sgrags now zero or negative. the border is in fact under control. the number of apprehensions -- 22,000 officers and they're having a harder time finding anybody to arrest. apprehensions at the mexico-u.s. border are now lower than at any time since 1972. have more and more officers chasing fewer and fewer people. part of this is the collapse in labor demand. particularly in residential home construction. after the great recession of 2008. but it's also been because the united states is quietly, without anybody really noticing, dramatically expanded temporary legal migration. given the choice, of course, migrants would much rather come here with legal documents. and in 2010, there were 517,000 -- 537,000 entries of mexicans into the united states with temporary work visas. the largest number of in history. so one of the reasons that illegal mig sgrags down is because opportunity have opened up in t
the united states and when i do, almost everywhere i go people, i'll ask them to raise hands. i do these informal polls. how many of you think that immigration is involved in national security and the hands go up. and rational people can argue how we're going to ration stuff. how many want flexible working conditions bi-nationally. hands go up. expand human rights, some hands go up. ours in a nation built on liberties, not on human rights but some of the things are similar. how many want a reduction in the noise along the border, all the hands go up. i will make one clarification and point here. i think, it's my experience that the border communities do suffer very significant financial cost and criminal justice law enforcement health care, education, et cetera. the nation as a whole benefits phenomenally from migration, but the cost and joys of migration are not evenly distributed. how many of you want to see a reduction in the political violence and the cartel stuff activities in mexico, all the hands go up, but we don't know quite how to deal with that and we are not willing to
. this is a bill for the entire united states of america. it's a bill for the taxpayers, for heavens sake. so senator tester, thank you for your leadership and that of senator vitter and i appreciate senator moran coming on to -- i don't have questions because the questions i would have asked had been asked while i was listening, but thank you very much. let's keep this you and let's redouble our resolve to actually get an accomplishment for the taxpayers and for the american public. >> well, thank you, senator -- >> live now on capitol hill this morning where the senate health committee and senate subcommittee on primary health and ageing is holding a hearing on the cost of hiv/aids drugs. senator bernie sanders has introduced a bill to shorten the time before generics can be made of those drugs. it includes an annual $3 billion prize for hiv/aids drug research. testifying this morning nobel laureate economist joseph stiglitz, harvard law professor lawrence less ig and a number of public health figures. vermont senator bernie sanders is chairing this hearing. he's in the room. this is about
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 801 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)